Hi Jack,Couple of questions for you if you don't mind.When did "directly to the point" equate to "curt" "snappy" or "irate"? andhow is being "direct to the point" being a "dick"?

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Now, what would happen during a Dhamma talk (Satsang) if someone drifts by playing his MP3 player, stands at the back listening a bit, and then blurts out a question while the teacher is speaking? Perhaps the disciples or the teacher might be annoyed by this rude interruption, and tell the interloper to switch off his MP3 player, sit down, and listen a bit before asking a question later when its more appropriate.

-------------Dear Bhikkhu PesalaSince You talked about MP3May I ask you a silly question?What made a monk email a song to me?As a gift? Or just want to share a song with me?

As for me... whenever I attached songs to my postsBecause I love beautiful/sweet written songsMost songs I posted were my birthday giftsFrom my brother/sisters/hubby/my kidAll my songs were such big hits!

yawares wrote:Dear Bhikkhu PesalaSince You talked about MP3May I ask you a silly question?What made a monk email a song to me?As a gift? Or just want to share a song with me?

Better ask the monk who sent it. I suppose that he knows that you are very fond of listening to songs.

There are very few songs that don't arouse unwholesome mind states like emotional attachment. The Buddha admonished the monks not to recite the Dhamma with a musical intonation like singers do.

Lay people can perform devotional songs like this metta chant, but monks should be striving to make a pleasing sound. A Cover Version by a female Burmese vocalist, Soe Sandar Htun, with a voice over and captions in Burmese translation of the Pāli.

yawares wrote:Dear Bhikkhu PesalaSince You talked about MP3May I ask you a silly question?What made a monk email a song to me?As a gift? Or just want to share a song with me?

Better ask the monk who sent it. I suppose that he knows that you are very fond of listening to songs.

There are very few songs that don't arouse unwholesome mind states like emotional attachment. The Buddha admonished the monks not to recite the Dhamma with a musical intonation like singers do.

Lay people can perform devotional songs like this metta chant, but monks should be striving to make a pleasing sound. Another Version by a Burmese vocalist, with a voice over and captions in Burmese translation of the Pāli.

---------------Dear Bhikkhu Pesala,

Is it against vinaya for a monk to email me a love song? What should I tell him? Can I email him SIN SIN SIN/or Thanks ???

If you distrust his motives, then avoid further contact with him. Only the monk himself can know his own motivations, or whether he broke any Vinaya rule, but I cannot think of a valid reason for emailing a love song to a female lay supporter.

Mettā is good, but it can easily turn to rāga if one is not careful.

The Buddha did not approve of monks chanting in a way that would distract the listeners from the meaning and get attached to the sound. Some ladies might also get lustfully attracted to monks who have a soft and pleasing voice.

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:If you distrust his motives, then avoid further contact with him. Only the monk himself can know his own motivations, or whether he broke any Vinaya rule, but I cannot think of a valid reason for emailing a love song to a female lay supporter.

Mettā is good, but it can easily turn to rāga if one is not careful.

The Buddha did not approve of monks chanting in a way that would distract the listeners from the meaning and get attached to the sound. Some ladies might also get lustfully attracted to monks who have a soft and pleasing voice.

-------------Dear Bhikkhu Pesala,

Oh ..I'm not one of those some ladies...never fall in love with a monk...oh no....sin sin sin..no can do !!!

Cittasanto wrote:Hi Jack,Couple of questions for you if you don't mind.When did "directly to the point" equate to "curt" "snappy" or "irate"? andhow is being "direct to the point" being a "dick"?

What I was speaking out against in my original post was responses that were curt and snappy, that was the point I was addressing and that was the post Alan responded to. I did not equate the two, I merely quoted his post and continued on with arguing my point.

In fact I state in the post itself that:

There's a difference between speaking frankly and doing so in a way that blatantly disregards the feelings of others.

I most certainly did not equate being direct to the point with being a dick. I simply said that my post was an example of how to disagree with someone without being a dick about it. So where you get this idea from, I do not know. But please do not take my words and inject your own meanings into them.

What I said about being direct to the point was this:

Speaking directly to the point might help in many circumstances, but in others it just hurts people's feelings and leaves them dejected.

My mentions of the words irate curt and snappy were this:

That not being irate and snappy at people all will somehow result in the extreme of an East Asian society.

So you tell me Cittasanto, when did "directly to the point" equate to "curt" "snappy" or "irate"? Because it certainly wasn't on my watch.

mettaJack

"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

A point that doesn't seem to have been mentioned is that our mental image of the poster will colour the words in a very significant way. So for instance if I have a positive image of a poster as a kindly wise older person, those short replies will sound like having been spoken with a gentle wink and come across is a positive well-intentioned manner. But if the image is of an arrogant and superior snob, the same words may sound sarcastic and rude.

Even someone new to the forum will hold images depending on their expectations.

This is all in addition to cultural variations in what is acceptable friendly forthrightness and what is unceremonious and rude.

Dan74 wrote:A point that doesn't seem to have been mentioned is that our mental image of the poster will colour the words in a very significant way. So for instance if I have a positive image of a poster as a kindly wise older person, those short replies will sound like having been spoken with a gentle wink and come across is a positive well-intentioned manner. But if the image is of an arrogant and superior snob, the same words may sound sarcastic and rude.

Even someone new to the forum will hold images depending on their expectations.

This is all in addition to cultural variations in what is acceptable friendly forthrightness and what is unceremonious and rude.

Well said, Dan!

“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.” - Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:in mountain clefts and chasms,loud gush the streamlets,but great rivers flow silently.- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Hi Jack,I am sorry but your initial sentence did indicate some form of connection being implied in the first half (which is where you use curt and not irate). Although yes you do say something in the second that does not agree so there was a lack of clarity in what I was reading. Hence asking questions instead of arguing a point, as I could not see how you were arguing against being direct and to the point (as opposed to pointed).

I also could not see how alan was responding directly to you in his first and only response in the thread.

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

Who's going to decide, to whom do you give all of the right to decide which speeches are harmful, or who is the harmful speaker; Or to determinate in advance what are the harmful consequences going to be, that we know enough about in advance to prevent? To whom would you give this job?

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

binocular wrote:There's a point from where on being amicable about disagreement becomes blatant heedlessness.

I don't agree. It seems to me that rudeness is blatant heedlessness.

Who's talking about rudeness?

Suppose you don't drink alcohol, but you have an acquaintance who does. The two of you strongly disagree on the point of drinking alcohol. Do you really think it is wholesome to amicably persist in association with someone - with the emphasis on persist - with whom you are in some fundamental disagreement?

Dan74 wrote:A point that doesn't seem to have been mentioned is that our mental image of the poster will colour the words in a very significant way. So for instance if I have a positive image of a poster as a kindly wise older person, those short replies will sound like having been spoken with a gentle wink and come across is a positive well-intentioned manner. But if the image is of an arrogant and superior snob, the same words may sound sarcastic and rude.

Even someone new to the forum will hold images depending on their expectations.

This is all in addition to cultural variations in what is acceptable friendly forthrightness and what is unceremonious and rude.

This is very true in many cases, but there are some cases I have witnessed which are beyond all doubt due to the nature of the phrasing.

Cittasanto wrote:Hi Jack,I am sorry but your initial sentence did indicate some form of connection being implied in the first half (which is where you use curt and not irate). Although yes you do say something in the second that does not agree so there was a lack of clarity in what I was reading. Hence asking questions instead of arguing a point, as I could not see how you were arguing against being direct and to the point (as opposed to pointed).

I also could not see how alan was responding directly to you in his first and only response in the thread.

No harm done man

mettaJack

"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

“Let us rise up and be thankful, for if we didn't learn a lot at least we learned a little, and if we didn't learn a little, at least we didn't get sick, and if we got sick, at least we didn't die; so, let us all be thankful.”

“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”

“As rain falls equally on the just and the unjust, do not burden your heart with judgements but rain your kindness equally on all. ” ― Gautama Buddha

To become vegetarian is to step into the stream which leads to nirvana.If you light a lamp for somebody, it will also brighten your path. He who experiences the unity of life sees his own Self in all beings, and all beings in his own Self.

Cittasanto wrote:Hi Jack,I am sorry but your initial sentence did indicate some form of connection being implied in the first half (which is where you use curt and not irate). Although yes you do say something in the second that does not agree so there was a lack of clarity in what I was reading. Hence asking questions instead of arguing a point, as I could not see how you were arguing against being direct and to the point (as opposed to pointed).

I also could not see how alan was responding directly to you in his first and only response in the thread.

No harm done man

mettaJack

Could you explain your argument against some occasions of being direct and to the point?

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

Speak only if it is true, beneficial, and timely / done with respect. There is nothing wrong with being direct and to the point, but it is often used an an excuse for harsh speech. Often the most powerful argument shows great restraint.

Buckwheat wrote:Speak only if it is true, beneficial, and timely / done with respect. There is nothing wrong with being direct and to the point, but it is often used an an excuse for harsh speech. Often the most powerful argument shows great restraint.

--------------Dear BuckwheatThe truth got me in troubleI better post songs..movies..storiesPoems..Pali..dhamma..no more bubbleThe truth can be harsh..will land me in trouble

Cittasanto wrote:Hi Jack,I am sorry but your initial sentence did indicate some form of connection being implied in the first half (which is where you use curt and not irate). Although yes you do say something in the second that does not agree so there was a lack of clarity in what I was reading. Hence asking questions instead of arguing a point, as I could not see how you were arguing against being direct and to the point (as opposed to pointed).

I also could not see how alan was responding directly to you in his first and only response in the thread.

No harm done man

mettaJack

Could you explain your argument against some occasions of being direct and to the point?

I'm not sure what you mean? If you want me to provide examples, then say "can you please provide examples"

If that's what you mean, my response is no. I'd rather not since the incidents that have caused me to speak up about this happened rather recently. They involved members I do not wish to get further off side with by dragging up something from the past. They chose to make the posts in question unviewable to general members, suggesting to me that they want to bury it and so it's not my place to discuss it publicly.

But you cannot tell me you haven't witnessed occasions where a member has been unnecessarily blunt. I have spoken to a member recently who was on the receiving end of it, and they felt upset.

I'll reiterate what I said in my posts before (which for some reason you seem to think had a lack of clarity):

Speaking directly to the point might help in many circumstances, but in others it just hurts people's feelings and leaves them dejected.The Buddha could do it with compassion, because he knew the mind of the interloper, and he knew that it was the most effective method of teaching him.

None of us have the Buddha's knowledge.

Sometimes speaking directly to the point does not fufill any of the following qualities:

"Monks, a statement endowed with five factors is well-spoken, not ill-spoken. It is blameless & unfaulted by knowledgeable people. Which five?

"It is spoken at the right time. It is spoken in truth. It is spoken affectionately. It is spoken beneficially. It is spoken with a mind of good-will.

It's really the curt and blunt incidents that I have a problem with, where other's feelings are disregarded, or perhaps more truthfully, not considered in the first place. If we really follow the Buddha's teachings, then we should aim to follow his advice on speech, as quoted above.

mettaJack

Last edited by BlackBird on Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:49 pm, edited 6 times in total.

"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta